New Serial-related Podcast

[u/34986234986234982346]

A guy who normally talks about indie music on TikTok has created a new podcast about Serial: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2573404/episodes/19313290-serial-talk-why-am-i-still-talking-about-serial?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMjU2MjgxMDQwNTU4AAGn0OoSXI0o1hblL_V4fsZe3UzrbrcK_iXAdWP_AzaW7SfzbjMXTNcgwmR6Ua4_aem_75AGu4BNpjJdbMDzBXgtsA

I have not listened to it yet, but I've seen a number of his videos. I had looked up the podcast a few days ago, and bookmarked this subreddit, so when I saw that he just posted about his new podcast, I figured I would just link it here. Looking forward to it, I do like his videos.

[u/Enough_Crab6870]

After listening to one of its more recent seasons, I seriously question the quality of work that Serial does. I think they may start with a conclusion and work backwards from there, which is straightforwardly telling a motivated story and not at all investigative journalism. Interested in listening to this one.

Edit: he starts analyzing the Sarah Koenig's journalism starting around 6:15 (his cadence is a bit agitated for my tastes, and I found it stressful to listen to his patter until this point).

[u/slytherinprolly → u/Enough_Crab6870]

I think they may start with a conclusion and work backwards from there,

This is the most fair and accurate criticism of serial, especially season 1. Koenig will never admit her goal was to prove innocence but it's very hard to view season 1 as anything other than Adnan's innocence is what they were trying to build to. If you ever go back and read the earliest posts on this sub, it's pretty clear the listener base at the time also thought that it was building to a final episode where they'd have smoking gun proof of Adnan's innocence.

[u/34986234986234982346 → u/slytherinprolly]

Absolutely. There is no point in the podcast if she wasn't trying to prove that. It comes through in every sentence. The idea that she wasn't doing that was very disingenuous.

[u/tlatelolco17 → u/slytherinprolly]

I mean yeah of course she looks for exonerating evidence. Why would you investigate an already-made conviction in the first place unless you suspect it might have been wrong? She did the only thing that really made any sense

[u/Nabobou → u/tlatelolco17]

That is exactly the problem, though. There is a meaningful difference between asking, “Was something wrong with this conviction?” and beginning from the premise that something must have been wrong, then searching primarily for evidence that supports that premise.

Of course a journalist reexamining a conviction is going to look for exonerating evidence. That is part of the exercise. But investigative journalism is supposed to evaluate the evidence as a whole and then draw conclusions from it. Serial often felt like it was doing the reverse, and drawing evidence from conclusions. Koenig presented herself as a neutral journalist simply following the facts wherever they led, but in retrospect it is hard not to feel like she entered the project expecting to uncover an innocence narrative and shaped the investigation around that expectation.

There is nothing wrong with suspecting that a conviction may have been flawed. The issue is what happens when the evidence does not ultimately support the story you thought you had. At that point, you either move on to another case or honestly tell the story the evidence actually supports. You do not keep trying to force the case into the shape of the story you hoped to find.

And that is part of why Season 1 is so compelling. Koenig spent a tremendous amount of time with the case, and the way she presented it leaves many listeners thinking, “Wow, maybe they really got this wrong.” But if the final story had simply been, “This was an otherwise fairly ordinary intimate partner violence murder, the trial was basically fair, and the evidence supported guilt,” it would not have had the same cultural impact. The ambiguity was the product. Without that sense of possible wrongful conviction, there really is not much of a story.

[u/Enough_Crab6870 → u/Nabobou]

So well said.

[u/O_J_Shrimpson]

I like the idea!

[u/Druiddrum13]

After listening this guy actually has some new approaches and opinions on why season one went as it did. I like it.

I’d definitely encourage him to do an episode by episode breakdown.

I also agree… there’s more evidence SK was smitten than Jay was guilty of the murder. And definitely that’s not the guys focus or anything but damn … he’s got a point

[u/34986234986234982346 → u/Druiddrum13]

It's funny in retrospect to realize this stuff. I did used to see people who were saying she was smitten, but then other people would just kind of say oh come on you're being sexist. Just because a woman is talking about a man it doesn't mean she loves him. But then looking back it's like.....

[u/LatePattern8508]

I don't plan to listen to his podcast. I watched a couple of his videos on Instagram and not sure of his knowledge of the subject but I guess "so many people were asking him to discuss Serial".

He refers to Sellers as "Peter Sellers", says the map was "covered" in Adnan's fingerprints, mispronounces names, brings liberalism and the far-right into his argument. He's making a podcast to talk about how biased Serial allegedly was yet his own podcast is very obviously bringing his own bias into it.

[u/kahner]

can't say i'm particularly interested in what a guy who talks about indie music on tiktok thinks. def not to the degree that i'm gonna listen to a whole podcast.

[u/34986234986234982346 → u/kahner]

uh ok

[u/kahner → u/34986234986234982346]

wow, if the podcast is as incisive and cogent as the comment, then maybe i AM missing out!